EvC Forum: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 206 of 350 (354048)
10-03-2006 11:15 PM

Reply to: Message 205 by MartinV
10-02-2006 2:32 PM

obfustication ... and STILL Clutching at straws to ignore the reality ...

RAZD writes:

He also makes the point that the crustose lichens -- in unpolluted forests -- are more prevalent where the moths rest more often (but not exclusively) -- on the lichen covered bark underside of branches, yes?
ie -- the moths normally rested where the typica variety had the most visual protection from bird predation in unpolluted forests.

What Majerus wrote is this:

So you concur that the typica variety is more protected by camouflage on those areas where it has been observed in the greatest proportions to be actually physically resting on the trees in question.

I say this because nothing you have provided refutes this point -- that observation and data from numerous studies show that (a) "the moths normally rested where the typica variety had the most visual protection from bird predation in unpolluted forests" and (b) "the moths normally rested where the carbonaria variety had the most visual protection from bird predation in polluted forests"
(color for emPHAsis).

MartinV quote mining Majerus writes:

The only criticism that can be aimed at all the predation studies conducted to date is that the moths available for predation did not take up their own resting positions during the pre-dawn flight that characterizes this species. This criticism should be addressed in future predation experiments...

So you concur that preferential predation of the moths occurred, that observation and data from numerous studies show that Majerus' conclusion is valid:

quote:
The rise in frequency of the dark form of the moth (carbonaria) and a decrease in the pale form (typica) was the result of differential predation by birds, the melanic form being more cyptic than typica in industrial areas where the tree bark was darkened by air pollution.

(color again mine for emPHAsis).

Note that the worst you can get based on this criticism from Majerus is that preferential predation was demonstrated when the conditions for concealment were less than optimum for each variety, but was never the less demonstrated to be clear, distinct and unambiguous evidence of the different ability of the two varieties under contrasting situations to be protected from predation by mimicry of their background environment.
(color for emPHAsis).

How is it possible, that after 50 years of intense study ...

Because (1) it looks like the populations of the moths is fairly small -- based on the numbers found around light traps for a whole year -- less than one a day, and small populations makes individuals hard to find, and (2) because it is not that critical to the studies (whether you think it is or not) -- preferential predation was demonstrated, preferential predation was observed, and no other mechanism has been proposed that can account for the data and observations.

Small populations also make changes in proportions more visible\observable\apparent.

How is it possible that you have not done any studies yourself to answer this vital question? How is it possible that creationists have not done any studies that should so easily disprove an "icon" of evolution when all they need to do is climb around trees for few years eh? How is it possible that they are content to complain for 50 years and not do anything about it?

In my country in deciduous forests there can be often found birchs. Were barks of birches during industrial revolution in England also dark?

Everything in the polluted areas was covered in soot. Black soot. Carbon black soot..
The Peppered Moth

quote:
As noted on page 297 of the Elephant Book, coal burned during the early decades of the industrial revolution produced soot that blanketed the countryside of the industrial areas of England between London and Manchester.

MartinV misrepresenting my argument writes:

... you as usually on such occasions emphasized "eternal truth" with "NO".

Note that in Message 202 I said "You of course realize that in a polluted forest there is virtually NO light background area for typica moths to rest on, no matter what their 'preference' is in the matter?"
(color, bold and underlined mine for emPHAsis).

What I emphasis is what the data shows, what the observations show, what the evidence includes.

Are grasses, flowers, leaves, twigs, everything so dark in polluted forest as if somebody burned there cars tyres? Is such places even fit to live in?

You tell me.
http://faculty.tcc.fl.edu/hss/wallert/sswkr.html
http://www.conservationtech.com/...5/England/Yorkshire-4.jpg
http://www.conservationtech.com/...5/England/Yorkshire-8.jpg
http://www.conservationtech.com/...4x5/England/Newcastle.jpg
http://www.conservationtech.com/...ngland/St.-Cath-docks.jpg
http://www.conservationtech.com/...s-4x5/England/Lancs-3.jpg
http://www.conservationtech.com/...s-4x5/England/Lancs-7.jpg

See How does Blake move from innocence to experience for some observations from this period:

quote:
"A little black thing among the snow" is an impersonal narration presenting the abandoned little child, black from the soot of his labour in the snow. A small sad poem with great meaning that is being simply put across to the reader with great simplicity and ease. Written about the city of London Blake's poem entitled "London" is a Song of Experience. Blake above all shows the evil effects of the Industrial Revolution on London. This poem is noting his imagination as he explores through the dirty streets of London. In writing this poem Blake wanted to communicate the dirty facts that the city was being taken to its inner death.

Why do you think we have anti-pollution laws now? Just to make things tough for industry?

Btw. is melanism observed only on peppered moths? What about Oak beauty moths and other species that according creationists:

Oak Beauty is the Pepper moth's closest relative in England and is a trunk rester, (unlike the Pepper moth) yet the melanic form may have increased from 33-36%, but was always in the minority although it lived in the same areas as the Pepper moth.

Melanism is observed in many different species and can have several different causes, even among otherwise closely related species. Please look at the pictures of the two moths from your creationist website and tell me that the Oak Beauty looks exactly like the typica peppered moth.

Oak Beauty: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/oak-beauty-biston-strataria.jpg
Typica: http://www.bible.ca/...textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-typica.jpg

Here's some other pictures of Biston strataria (search pages for "oak")
http://www.northamptonshirewildlife.co.uk/...life/emoths.htm
http://www.david.element.ukgateway.net/moths7.htm
National Moth Night UK results from the Woodland Education Centre Introduction

Here's a set of pictures showing variation in darkness
Available Website

Are they similar enough to the differences between Biston betularia typica and Biston betularia carbonaria to have comparable results due to polution?

Given that all pictures of Oak Beauty, Biston Strataria, moths on google are significantly darker than Biston betularia typica and in fact are closer to carbonaria, the answer should be obvious. In case it isn't, it is because there is just not much difference between the two varieties of Biston stratari.

This is a typical creationist slight of hand ploy, attempting to substitute a situation that does not apply for one that does.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 205 by MartinV, posted 10-02-2006 2:32 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 214 by MartinV, posted 10-07-2006 5:55 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 207 of 350 (354093)
10-04-2006 7:52 AM

Reply to: Message 205 by MartinV
10-02-2006 2:32 PM

Oak Beauty, Biston strataria

Just to be clear ...

Btw. is melanism observed only on peppered moths? What about Oak beauty moths and other species that according creationists:

I did not found refutation of this either on talkorigins or in Majerus articles. Is it hoax or a forgotten fact?

"Creationist site on pepperd moth"

So there is a clear, distinct and unambiguous shift in the proportions of populations between the varieties of the Oak Beauty Moth, Biston strataria, a related species that also inhabits the same general environment as the Peppered Moth, Biston betularia, ...

... even though the differences between dark and light forms is much less in the Oak Beauty Moth, Biston strataria, than in the Peppered Moth, Biston betularia, ...

... and this somehow demonstrates that

preferential predation did not occur in either species,
that the cause of change in preferential predation was not the result of first pollution and then it's abatement altering the selection, and
that the data for either the Oak Beauty Moth, Biston strataria, or the Peppered Moth, Biston betularia, is invalid?

I'd like to see the logic behind those conclusions, seeing as they run counter to the evidence.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 205 by MartinV, posted 10-02-2006 2:32 PM		MartinV has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 216 of 350 (354960)
10-07-2006 8:08 AM

Reply to: Message 215 by MartinV
10-07-2006 6:22 AM

More Ignorance.

If it were red, so we would have observed red moths morphs?Do we ever observed moths that due mutation of gene have green/blue/yellow/ wings? BTW. bricks are red, so was there ever mutation of moths to brick color, that can survive on wall in cities? Or mutation is restricted to white-dark gamut and each generation release some individuals so to say to see if there is any advantage of this crypsis? Do we know green morphs which can eventualy rest on leaves? Why not?

Because mutation is not directed. There is no choice to be red or blue or green involved and no mechanism to cause this. There is no "chameleon" process where cryptic patterns are chosen {to appear in order} to match backgrounds.

This is a common misconception of evolution mutation & natural selection mechanisms by creationists and it leads to more misunderstanding on their part of how evolution works.

Mutation is random, unpredictable, undirected. It's like drawing a lottery ticket. Whatever mutation happens is then subject to the filter of natural selection. The mutation needs to occur for natural selection to operate, and there is no mechanism to force a 'desired' mutation to occur.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added in {}'s

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 215 by MartinV, posted 10-07-2006 6:22 AM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 219 by MartinV, posted 10-08-2006 5:51 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 217 of 350 (354980)
10-07-2006 12:56 PM

Reply to: Message 214 by MartinV
10-07-2006 5:55 AM

further obfustication with Oak Beauty ...

From the picture I would say that the difference is sensible. That melanic form is distingishable enough is clear from Majerus consideration (creationist link):

The case of the peppered moth's closest British relative, the oak beauty, Biston strataria (Hufnagel) (Fig. 7.17), is instructive in this regard. This species has a melanic form, f. melanaria, which is a recent and common industrial melanic in the Netherlands, but has never occurred at appreciable frequencies in Britain.

Yet Majerus do not see this as unambiguous as you proposed:

However, the melanic mutation in the oak beauty seems never to have arisen in this country in favourable circumstances, with the consequence that it has not successfully established itself here.

So now you are saying that there was no appreciable melanic population of the Oak Beauty in England for the effect of Natural Selection to operate?

Before you implied there was (along with the false implication that it should have exactly the same results as Biston betulari). Your link also mentioned an increase in the melanic form in this period -- was it lying about this evidence?

The issue of Oak Beauty is clearly different from Peppered Moths as

they have a significantly different appearance from either Peppered Moth variety AND
there is much less difference between "melanic" and "typical" varieties of Oak Beauty AND
neither Oak Beauty variety is more "soot-like" than the other (one dark brown, one darker brown?) AND
thus there would be no real relative advantage of one over the other due to the increased coverage of the environment by soot.

If both populations would be similarly affected by a sooty environment, then there would be no selective advantage of one over the other as is the case with Biston betulari.

Until there is a demonstrated advantage of one over the other there is no argument made by using this example - except for the argument that creat(ort)ionist(a) sites misrepresent the truth of the matter.

This still does not in any way invalidate the data based on the observations and studies made of Biston betulari. That data still shows preferential predation of moths based on different camouflage ability in different environments where different existing varieties have different survival fitness.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 214 by MartinV, posted 10-07-2006 5:55 AM		MartinV has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 218 of 350 (354985)
10-07-2006 1:49 PM

Reply to: Message 214 by MartinV
10-07-2006 5:55 AM

frantically Clutching at straws to ignore the reality ...

We are spinning in a circle. Observations are scanty ant imperfect.

You are spinning in a circle, first arguing one way and then the other, with no consistent theory or argument.

Explanations are based on the evidence available, and these "scanty ant imperfect" observations are still sufficient to show that the effect of differential predation on the relative populations two varieties of moths, first to the benefit of the carbonaria variety in polluted forests and then to the benefit of the typica variety in non-polluted (or de-polluted) forests.

There was clear, distinct and unambiguous evidence of preferential predation by birds of the moths.

There was, and still is, no other mechanism proposed that accounts for this clear, distinct and unambiguous evidence as well as Natural Selection.

There was, and still is, no other mechanism proposed that accounts for the equally clear, distinct and unambiguous evidence that the populations of moths changed over time downwind of pollution centers, that first showed an increase in the proportion of carbonaria forms from rare to predominant, and the decrease in proportion of typica forms from predominant to rare, as a result of the effect of the pollution on the environment.

There was, and still is, no other mechanism proposed that accounts for the equally clear, distinct and unambiguous evidence that the populations of moths changed over time downwind of pollution centers, that first showed an increase in the proportion of typica forms from rare to predominant, and the decrease in proportion of carbonaria forms from predominant to rare, as a result of the effect of the cleaning up the pollution in the environment.

These two observations are no way sufficient as evidence of hypothesis that decline of peppered moths was caused by preferential predation during industrial revolution.

And yet you have still to provide any alternative explanation that does explain the observed data.

You reject the conclusion that follows from the evidence because it invalidates your pet hypothesis and not because of any logical reasoning. You cite both Grant and Majerus, and yet both of them conclude that preferential predation occurred, the objections they raise are insufficient in their opinion to invalidate the theory or the conclusion based on the available evidence:

Moths in pre-industrial England were predominantly of the typica variety, with some relatively rare occurrences of carbonaria variety moths being recorded.
Moths in industrial England in areas downwind of heavily industrial areas were found to be predominantly of the carbonaria variety, with some relatively rare occurrences of typica variety moths being recorded.
Moths in rural areas of England distant from heavily industrial areas were still predominantly of the typica variety, with some relatively rare occurrences of carbonaria variety moths being recorded.
CONCLUSION: Something in the polluted areas was causing the populations of carbonaria variety moths to rise, or the populations of typica variety moths to decline, or both.
DISCUSSION: Possible causes are (1) a kind of "Lamarckism", where moths that become sooty breed sooty offspring, (2) a kind of "Mutationism", whereby mutations are directed to occur to increase camouflage ability in later generations, (3) the process we call "Natural Selection" where already existing variations have different survival fitness in different environmental situations, and (4) a selective migration process where unfit moths leave areas where they are more "at risk" for predation.
Moths placed (not glued) on trunks were found and consumed by birds in direct relation to their (human and bird) perceived camouflage level on a non-polluted tree trunk - demonstrating that birds saw the least camouflaged (carbonaria) moths first and the most camouflaged (typica) moths last.
Moths placed (not glued) on trunks were found and consumed by birds in direct relation to their (human and bird) perceived camouflage level on a polluted tree trunk - demonstrating that birds saw the least camouflaged (typica) moths first and the most (carbonaria) camouflaged moths last.
CONCLUSION: This demonstrates preferential predation actually occurs in both cases. "Lamarkism" cannot explain this result as it occurs in existing individuals. "Mutationism" cannot explain this result as it occurs in existing individuals. Migration cannot explain this result as there was no movement of the moths.
DISCUSSION: Natural Selection is not just the best explanation of the observed clear, distinct and unambiguous evidence of preferential predation of moths in these cases, it is the only one of these theories that explains the results of these cases.
Moths marked and released in an unpolluted forest and recaptured the following day showed a higher proportion of the most camouflaged (typica) moths (according to the fixed moth study results) survived during that interval than the least camouflaged (carbonaria) moths (again according to the fixed moth study results).
Moths marked and released in an polluted forest and recaptured the following day showed a higher proportion of the most camouflaged (carbonaria) moths (according to the fixed moth study results) survived during that interval than the least camouflaged (typica) moths (again according to the fixed moth study results).
CONCLUSION: This demonstrated that preferential predation actually occurred in both cases OR that moths preferentially migrated away from their release points OR that both occurred. "Lamarkism" cannot explain this result as it occurred in existing individual populations. "Mutationism" cannot explain this result as it occurred in existing individual populations.
DISCUSSION: based on these two studies alone the "Lamarkism" and "Mutationism" theories can be eliminated as they do not explain the observed results of these studies. This leave preferential predation and preferential migration as the two remaining possibilities that explain the observed results.

We know that preferential predation occurs from the first study. There is no need to discuss whether preferential predation occurs or not, as it has been demonstrated. The results of Kettlewell's experiments are sufficient to demonstrate this.

The theory of preferential predation is sufficient to explain all the observed data - on it's own.

The question remaining then is whether preferential migration can be an additional part of the equation.

BTW you did not addressed my question, if melanism could not be explained due migration of more conspicuous form to more favourable areas.

I'll take this to mean the theory of preferential migration noted above. If this is not what you are arguing then feel free to correct that impression.

We do know that moths may select preferred resting places where they are available, so that the ones with less protection may be inclined to travel farther in search of preferred resting places. This could result in the more unfit moths choosing to travel further than normal in an attempt to get away from unfavorable conditions, whether those are polluted forests for typica moths or non-polluted (de-polluted) forests for carbonaria moths. This would be a cause for preferential migration of the different moth varieties.

If preferential migration were the only cause of this observed phenomena then in areas surrounding polluted forests there should be (1) an increase in typica moths (that come from polluted areas) and (2) a decrease in carbonaria moths (that went into polluted areas). This would result in an increased proportion of typica moths over carbonaria moths in areas surrounding polluted forests.

This was not observed: the proportions of typica moths over carbonaria moths in rural areas remained essentially the same as they were in pre-industrial England. Further, the charts of moth densities show no increase in proportions of typica moths over carbonaria moths in areas surrounding polluted areas. For the effect to be significant enough to explain the proportions of carbonaria moths over typica moths in the polluted areas there would have to be a equally noticeable increase in the proportions of typica moths over carbonaria moths in the surrounding areas. Do the math eh?

Furthermore, increased mobility of less protected moths looking for safe resting places does not necessarily result in migration out of an area, as they are as likely to travel in one direction on one flight as another. Flying back and forth across an areas does not get you out of it.

For a moth to choose a direction and stick to it night after night there would need to be some cause for choosing that direction. A full moon, or bright lights in a distance for instance (as we know moths are attracted to light). This would apply to all the moths, and again should result in a marked pattern of increased proportions of typica moths over carbonaria moths on one side of a polluted area (from typica moths leaving polluted areas) with a similar increased proportions of typica moths over carbonaria moths on the other side of a polluted area (from carbonaria moths leaving the non-polluted areas).

This would concentrate the effect in a line of migration and would also have to be significant enough to be observed outside the polluted areas in order to account for the observed change in population proportions within the polluted areas with increased the proportions of carbonaria moths over typica moths there . Again, this was not observed: the charts of moth densities show no increase in proportions of typica moths over carbonaria moths in areas surrounding polluted areas.

The theory of preferential migration is not sufficient to explain all the observed data - on it's own.

The theory of preferential predation is sufficient to explain all the observed data - on it's own.

There is another way that increased mobility of the more "at risk" moths can result in a change in proportions of (1) carbonaria moths over typica moths in polluted areas and (2) typica moths over carbonaria moths in non-polluted (or de-polluted) areas, that would not affect the proportions of moths outside the areas of concern.

If the more "at risk" variety is flying for longer periods of time than the less "at risk" variety in order to find a safe resting place, then that means they are spending proportionally more "air time" when they are active - at night - and when they are subject to bat predation.

Bat predation would not, could not, select based on coloration, as noted before, but there would be an effect of bat predation based on the proportion of moth-hours in the air at any one time.

If moths more "at risk" of bird predation by day engage in modified behavior to escape bird predation by increasing their "air time" at night, then they will be increasing the proportion of moth-hours (compared to moths that don't modify their behavior) that they are exposed to bat predation, which will result in more predation by bats of moths spending more "air time" than other moths.

This hypothesis is untested, and so we do not know what proportion of the result is from such predation, BUT:

This is still natural selection.

In this case, Natural Selection for behavior favoring typica moths spending less night "air time" than carbonaria moths in non-polluted areas and favoring carbonaria moths spending less night "air time" than typica moths in polluted areas.

AND

This is still due to bird predation, as the behavior is engaged in order to avoid bird predation during the day - the bats don't care about the colors and the relative camouflage ability, only about moths flying at night.

AND

This is still a result of changing environment from non-polluted to polluted to de-polluted on the relative fitness of two different varieties of already existing moths of the same species, causing a population shift from one to the other and then back.

ie - the result is still a change in population proportions due to bird predation and industrial pollution.

Or as Majerus still concludes (based on his knowledge of all the data, and the shortcomings and problems):

quote:
The rise in frequency of the dark form of the moth (carbonaria) and a decrease in the pale form (typica) was the result of differential predation by birds, the melanic form being more cyptic than typica in industrial areas where the tree bark was darkened by air pollution.

I repeat, nothing you have posted has refuted or in any way invalidated this conclusion.

The theory of preferential predation is sufficient to explain all the observed data - on it's own.

None of the other theories thus far floated have this ability. Not one.

Until there is more evidence or a better explanation is proposed there remains only one ligical valid conclusion currently based on the evidence:

This remains a clear, distinct, and unambiguous demonstration of Natural Selection in action.

Denial does not make this evidence go away nor does it make this conclusion invalid.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added line in pink

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 214 by MartinV, posted 10-07-2006 5:55 AM		MartinV has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 223 of 350 (355173)
10-08-2006 9:54 AM

Reply to: Message 219 by MartinV
10-08-2006 5:51 AM

Avoiding the data again?

As to "chameleon" process: Once I saw a darwinistic propaganda film on birds catching fish. It was said, that there was once rare mutation, that led to the completely white color of abdomen of a bird and consequently fish could not detect it against the sky, so bird has advantage and its genes spreads.

And that was my question before.

What was your question? That random mutations happen and that beneficial ones are selected for (and harmful ones selected against) by natural selection?

Or are you really thinking that mutation happens on demand?

Is it not weird, that mutation is somehow restricted to dark color in moths species and green, red, yellow mutations are excluded ? If we do not detect other colours but melanic, is it correct to presume, that mutations in this case of moths are "random"?

Yes it is correct to conclude that mutations are random, even in these moths.

The other half of the picture is selection -- by survival and reproduction, and that is what this topic is about: the evidence for selection based on the preferential predation of moths by birds due to their different camouflage ability in different environments, and how that has affected their relative population proportions.

If novel mutations alter the appearance of a moth to birds such that it is much more noticable to birds, then it too will be selected for consumption, just as ones that become more visible because the environment changes get selected for consumption.

If a novel mutation alters the appearance of a moth to other moths then it may not be selected for reproduction (or less often selected), but this (and similar aspects) are not tested in this condition of industrial pollution affecting moth populations, because it is about the preferential predation of moths by birds due to their different camouflage ability in different environments, and how that has affected their relative population proportions.

Remember we are already talking about a moth that has been previously selected or adapted for cryptic pattern on lichen covered tree bark, and thus any mutation that makes it less like lichen covered tree bark makes it more vulnerable.

Color fits this category that would be actively selected against, and so any mutations for colors would be selected out of the previous populations before pollution was introduced. Even green would have trouble as you have to be either all green on a leaf or all lichen-like on the bark for the current level of camouflage to protect the individuals.

Melanism doesn't fit this category -- it is just variation in the degree of the already existing colors and patterns.

quote:
mel·a·nism -n.
2. Dark coloration of the skin, hair, fur, or feathers because of a high concentration of melanin.

mel·a·nin -n.
Any of a group of naturally occurring dark pigments, especially the pigment found in skin, hair, fur, and feathers.

Variation in an already occurring pigmentation, a difference in degree and not in kind.

So why so many random mutation during industrial revolution have led to melanic forms, ...

The melanic forms were already pre-existing, they were part of the normal variation in the species in both the Peppered Moth and the Oak Moth. And other insects and animals.

There was no new mutation involved in this effect of industrial pollution on the selection fitness of the moths, not for blue, red, green, yellow, brown or black.

This whole topic is all about natural selection of existing variations and not about mutations introducing variations into the populations.

The data shows preferential selection between two existing varieties due to different fitness in different conditions.

The data shows Natural Selection occurred.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 219 by MartinV, posted 10-08-2006 5:51 AM		MartinV has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 228 of 350 (355421)
10-09-2006 4:08 PM

Reply to: Message 224 by MartinV
10-09-2006 12:55 PM

population shift and preferential predation

This

msg 226 writes:

Anyway barn owls that are most distributed owls around the world use hearing to detect preys. Note, that there is also decline of rodents activity during full moon.

With regard to topic drift, is the same misunderstanding of the issue as this:

It would be interesting to know. Now we do not know where peppered moths rest, if there is any connection between available lichen resting places and oscillation of typica population and even we do not know genetics behind peppered moth melanic phenomenon. Yet we are persuaded same as in your link that oscillation of peppered moths is due bird predation.

The issue of the Peppered Moth is NOT a change in mutations, and the "oscillations" of "genetics behind peppered moth melanic phenomenon" is not the issue: the moths that survive are not increasing their melanic coloration in polluted areas and decreasing it in non-polluted areas.

What is increasing and decreasing is the numbers of moths of the different varieties that survive to reproduce moths genetically similar to themselves. This is what survival natural selection is about, selection based on existing conditions, behavior, and features.

Any and all predation that does not depend on coloration and cryptic behavior is irrelevant to the selection for or against cryptic behavior. Owls hunting mice by sound in pitch dark and bats hunting moths by ultrasound at night are totally neutral to the selection of color\cryptic patterns.

In both cases there is also predation that DOES depend on visiblity of the mouse and moths, and during those times the benefits of better camouflage means that one type has an advantage over the other type that will result in higher overall survival rates throughout the population.

Those with an advantage survive in higher numbers, those with a disadvantage survive in lower numbers, and the proportions of the populations change.

In both cases the prey species also shows adaptive behavior to reduce predation when most visible - the mice are less active on moonlit nights, and the moths stay fixed in place by day - thus demonstrating that visibility plays a role in the overall predation of the species, and that any benefit to reduce the effect of visibility AT THOSE TIMES will pay off with increased survival for the population with the beneficial features, while features that increase relative visibility AT THOSE TIMES will cost in decreased survival for the population with the non-beneficial features.

Those with an advantage survive in higher numbers, those with a disadvantage survive in lower numbers, and the proportions of the populations change.

This explanation fits the data of the Peppered Moth changes in population proportions. It also fits all the experimental evidence.

The question of what we do not know does NOT invalidate the information that we DO know. Focusing on what we do not know can be valid for the question of further research to refine the results we already have, or to test a new theory that has a different explanation than the current one.

Without a new theory though, and certainly without any significant contradictory information\data for preferential predation, nit-picking the tid-bits that are not known does not invalidate the information collected OR the conclusion reached that does explain all the current data.

All it amounts to is god-of-the-gaps and denial of evidence. Neither of which qualify as "knowledge".

So no matter of color of mouse I would say.

You would be as wrong about the mouse as you have consistently been about the Peppered Moth. Perhaps Wounded King will start a thread on that so that this can be demonstrated.

In your 18 posts out of the 100 or so since your first post on this topic (Message 126) you have not presented any information that invalidates either the data collected from the studies OR the conclusions reached based on the data.

Certainly you have not demonstrated any level of deception or fraud on the part of the existing studies, as you had implied in Message 32

But I can glue as well dead moths on the tree trunk, photograph them and presented them as support of my conception, that there are no changes in population of moths.

But if you think that it was done with noble aim to persuade pupils into believing in darwinism I have no intention to quarrel about this.

The conclusion is that you have no such information to support an assertion of fraud or deception, and all you have is denial of the existing evidence.

Preferential predation by birds during the day of moths, resting on lichen covered barks in unpolluted forests or on sooty barks in polluted forests, based on their relative camouflage ability in each environment, remains the best (if not the ONLY) explanation that fits the evidence.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added moonlit nights

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 224 by MartinV, posted 10-09-2006 12:55 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 229 by MartinV, posted 10-10-2006 1:27 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 232 of 350 (356014)
10-11-2006 9:33 PM

Reply to: Message 231 by MartinV
10-10-2006 2:13 PM

the question is: what is your theory?

The question is how do YOU explain the documented change in population proportions?

So far you have proposed no mechanism to explain the data.

You claim the conclusions of others is wrong but have yet to explain what really happened.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 231 by MartinV, posted 10-10-2006 2:13 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 233 by MartinV, posted 10-13-2006 1:12 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 235 of 350 (356427)
10-13-2006 11:29 PM

Reply to: Message 233 by MartinV
10-13-2006 1:12 PM

Try again.

That hypothetical rambling doesn't explain the evidence.

1)
Due to ultraviolet visions of birds there is no crypsis of pepperd moths at all ...

This is invalidated (ie proven false) by Kettlewell's experiments with the moths on the tree trunks, you know, the one where the birds showed clear, distinct and unambiguous ability to spot the more non-cryptic moths and gradually less ability to spot the more cryptic ones the more cryptic they got.

You don't explain the results of Kettlewell's release experiments either. Why there was a difference in the two different forests in one night.

... beyond of creativeness of darwinists ...

Creativeness is not the issue -- explaining the evidence is the issue, and fantasy that is invalidated by the evidence does very little to explain it.

The point of science is to explain the observations and evidence, not just to make up stories.

So the rise of melanic forms is caused by mutation that automaticaly accomodated wings colors and patterns to prevalent colors of environment ...

Like Lamarkism, Mutationism has been invalidated as well, as previously mentioned.

4)
Selective predation of bats which are leading predators of moths. .. It plays in cards of neodarwinistic selection too but if it is the case all Kettlewell and subsequent researches and hypothesis were wrong from the beginning.

This doesn't explain the shift from light to dark forms with pollution and then back from dark to light with the removal of pollution -- this bat selection based on hypothetical UV vision would be the same for the different varieties no matter which environment they were in.

You do not explain the data of the experiments and you do not explain the data of the populations shifting from light to dark and then from dark to light.

Your hypothetical fantasy does not stand up to the test against existing data. It has been falsified.

Please try again.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 233 by MartinV, posted 10-13-2006 1:12 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 236 by MartinV, posted 10-16-2006 5:31 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 237 of 350 (357606)
10-19-2006 11:22 PM

Reply to: Message 236 by MartinV
10-16-2006 5:31 PM

Once more -- Try again.

I will assume these neodarwinian claims to be true and valid:

1) Birds predation is different and selective on typica and on carbonaria depending on backround (polluted area) as observed in aviary and claimed by neodarwinists.

Nit-pick: Bird predation is the SAME - selecting the ones less protected by comouflage for predation first. The condition of exposure to predation is different for the different varieties in different environments -- as predicted by the theory of natural selection btw.

I understand your meaning, but this is rather significant to the issue and it needs to be clear.

2) Mayerus many years observation (as the only one publicized observation where do peppered moths rest) is right and really there are many moths that rests on tree trunks and on branch and trunk joins and that are subsequently exposed to selective pressure.

There does not need to be {many} there just needs to be {some}. This seems to be one of your big stumbling blocks, that you want a universal effect on every moth involved. Think of it this way:

non-selective predation will consume moths in proportion to their different populations, and thus will not change the proportions of the two varieties,
selective predation will consume more of one type of moth over the other OUT of proportion to their different populations, and thus WILL change the proportions of the two varieties.

That is all that preferential predation need accomplish to result in the observed changes in populations, first in the polluted areas, and then in reverse in the pollution alleviated areas.

So my conlusion is this - what we catch in pheromone and light traps might not automatically correspond with real situation in forest at all. Let say that in forest there are in the moment of catching moths into traps already laid eggs for next genearation and ratio for next generation is 50% carbonaria and 50% typica. Even if in sample in traps we catch 98% of carbonaria.

Some variation is possible, of course. This amount is highly unlikely.

This kind of trend would also only explain the change observed for one day or so, and not the overall consistent trend that was observed, day after day after day.

Remember that the reason for the study in the first place was the observation of clear, distinct and unambiguous change in the populations, change that persisted within the polluted areas as long as the pollution continued, and that did NOT occur outside the polluted areas.

It would surely explain very well anomality, that after anti-pollution legislative there was sudden increase of typica despite of no observable re-occurence of lichens and despite of fact that carbonaria alleles are dominant.

Sorry? How does this get explained? By assuming something without any evidence for it? Ignoring evidence that exists by claiming it is irrelevant?

Remember that you need to first explain the RISE of the carbonaria variety in the polluted forest.

Remember also that Majerus says the populations of the two moths correlate more with SO₂ concentrations in the polluted forests. Sulphur Dioxide is soluble in water, commonly forming what is known as acid rain (also in areas of coal burning pollution, btw), in the process. Thus it dissolves in rain and is readily washed out of the environment except where pollution keeps re-introducing it. End the pollution and the first thing to go is the sulphur dioxide.

After that female is starting to lay eggs - details we do not know.

But the genes in the eggs will be roughly proportionate to the genes in the overall breeding population, with the proportions easily determined by standard Mendelian genetics eh?

Using C = carbonaria and T = typica and looking at the results for changes in populations ...

... At first blush we should get CC, CT, TT and TC as possible offspring of random mating where there is equal populations, and there should be a major advantage to carbonaria as the dominant morph gene, yes?

But remember that as the C gene is dominant so that all CC, CT and TC are already lumped into carbonaria, and they already exist within the carbonaria population.

This gives us four (4) basic mating patterns (within which there are sub patterns):

Pattern {A} - male typica breeding with female typica

TT+tt = Tt Tt Tt Tt - all four "typica"
4 typica out of 4
100% typica
0% carbonaria

Pattern {B} - male typica breeding with female carbonaria

TT+cc = Tc Tc Tc Tc - all four "carbonaria"
TT+tc = Tt Tc Tt Tc - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
TT+ct = Tc Tt Tc Tt - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
4 typica out of 12
33% typica
67% carbonaria

Pattern {C} - male carbonaria breeding with female carbonaria

CC+cc = Cc Cc Cc Cc - all four "carbonaria"
CC+ct = Cc Ct Cc Ct - all four "carbonaria"
CC+tc = Ct Cc Ct Cc - all four "carbonaria"
CT+cc = Cc Cc Tc Tc - all four "carbonaria"
CT+ct = Cc Ct Tc Tt - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
CT+tc = Ct Cc Tt Tc - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
TC+cc = Tc Tc Cc Cc - all four "carbonaria"
TC+ct = Tc Tt Cc Ct - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
TC+tc = Tt Tc Ct Cc - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
4 typica out of 36
11% typica
89% carbonaria

Pattern {D} - male carbonaria breeding with female typica

CC+tt = Ct Ct Ct Ct - all four "carbonaria"
TC+tt = Tt Tt Ct Ct - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
CT+tt = Ct Ct Tt Tt - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
4 typica out of 12
33% typica
67% carbonaria

IF the populations are equal then each of these has equal probability (assuming no sexual preference for varieties to mate together)

typica = (100% + 33% + 11% + 33%)/4 = 177%/4 = 44%
carbonaria = (0% + 67% + 89% + 67%)/4 = 223%/4 = 56%

Some difference, yes, but not nearly as much as one would have thought from "first blush" eh?

That is IF the populations are equal in size.

If the populations are NOT equal in size, then we need to correct for the population proportions (this is where it gets a little technical mathematically, so bear with me).

Say typica is 75% of the breeding population and carbonaria is 25% of the breeding population -- this gives us a 4x4 grid - with females across the top axis (typica, typica, typica, carbonaria), and males on the left side axis (typica, typica, typica, carobnaria), and then within this grid we can place each of the four (4) cases above

   | T | T | T | C |
--------------------
T | A | A | A | B |
--------------------
T | A | A | A | B |
--------------------
T | A | A | A | B |
--------------------
C | D | D | D | C |
--------------------

Notice the proportions: we have typica at 3:1 to carbonaria in both male and female populations, and this results in (3+1)^{^2} = 16 mating patterns with 3^{^2} = 9 mating pattern {A}, 3 mating pattern {B}, 1 mating pattern {C} and 3 mating pattern {D}, for an overall mating result:

typica = (9x100% + 3x33% + 1x11% + 3x33%)/16 = 1111%/16 = 69%
carbonaria = (9x0% + 3x67% + 1x89% + 3x67%)/16 = 491%/16 = 31%

And that we can generalize this as
typica = (100%n^{^2} + 33%n + 11% + 33%n)/(n+1)^{^2} = (100%n^{^2} + 67%n + 11%)/(n+1)^{^2} = T%
carbonaria = (0%n^{^2}+ 67%n + 89% + 67%n)/16 = (133%n + 89%)/(n+1)^{^2}= C%

So that if carbonaria is 10% of the breeding population we get a next generation population proportion of

typica = (100x81 + 67x9 + 11)/100 = 87%
carbonaria = (133x9 + 89)/100 = 13%

And if carbonaria is 1% of the breeding population we get a next generation population proportion of

typica = (100x9801 + 67x99 + 11)/10000 = 99%
carbonaria = (133x99 + 89)/10000 = 1%

Say carbonaria is 75% of the population and typicais 25% of the population -- this gives us a 4x4 grid - with females across the top axis (carbonaria, carbonaria, carbonaria, typica), and males on the left side axis (carbonaria, carbonaria, carbonaria, typica), and then within this grid we can place each of the four (4) cases above

   | C | C | C | T |
--------------------
C | C | C | C | B |
--------------------
C | C | C | C | B |
--------------------
C | C | C | C | B |
--------------------
T | D | D | D | A |
--------------------

Notice again the proportions: we have carbonaria at 3:1 to typica in both male and female populations, and this results in (3+1)^{^2} = 16 mating patterns with 3^{^2} = 9 mating pattern {C}, 3 mating pattern {B}, 1 mating pattern {A} and 3 mating pattern {D}, for an overall mating result:

typica = (1x100 + 3x33 + 9x11 + 3x33)/16 = 399/16 = 25%
carbonaria = (1x0 + 3x67 + 9x89 + 3x67)/16 = 1201/16 = 75%

And that we can also generalize this as
typica = (100 + 33n + 11n^{^2} + 33n)/(n+1)^{^2} = (100 + 67n + 11n^{^2})/(n+1)^{^2} = T%
carbonaria = (0 + 67n + 89n^{^2} + 67n)/16 = (133n + 89n^{^2})/(n+1)^{^2}= C%

So that if carbonaria is 90% of the breeding population we get

typica = (100 + 67x9 + 11x81)/100 = 16%
carbonaria = (133x9 + 89x81)/100 = 84%

And if carbonaria is 99% of the breeding population we get a next generation population proportion of

typica = (100 + 67x99 + 11x9801)/10000 = 11%
carbonaria = (133x99 + 89x9801)/10000 = 89%

The astute observer will notice that as the breeding population approaches 100% typica that the results approach breeding pattern {A}, and that as the breeding pattern approaches 100% carbonaria that the results approach breeding pattern {C}.

The astute observer will also notice that where the carbonaria proportion of populations is low (below an equilibrium point) that the next generation will tend to have more carbonaria (driving the carbonaria proportion upwards - towards the equilibrium point) ...

... and that where the carbonaria proportion of populations is high (above an equilibrium point) that the next generation will tend to have less carbonaria (driving the carbonaria proportion downwards - towards the equilibrium point) ...

... and that, in the absence of any active selection process or mechanism that favors one variety of the moths over the other variety, that the populatio proportions should be at the equilibrium levels.

A really astute observer will see that the equilibrium point will be reached when the carbonaria variety reaches 75% and the typica variety is at 25% of the overall breeding population - the same proportions as the original "first blush" mating results: with CC, CT, TT and TC as equally possible offspring of random mating.

Conclusions based on this analysis are:

(1) Even with 100% predation of the typica variety the proportion of carbonaria in the total population can never logically reach 100%.

(2) That starting from 1% carbonaria proportion of the population that the population proportion will reach 75% in ~40 generations - in the absence of any active selection process or mechanism that favors typica moths.

(3) That starting from 99% carbonaria proportion of the population that the population proportion will reach 75% in ~20 generations - in the absence of any active selection process or mechanism that favors typica moths.

(4) For the "natural" (non-pollution) situation, the proportion of typica moths exceeds 25%, so there must be an active selection mechanism in place that preferentially selects for survival of the typica variety over the carbonaria variety.

(5) For the "polluted" situation, the proportion of carbonaria moths exceeds 75%, so there must be an active selection mechanism in place that preferentially selects for survival of the carbonaria variety over the typica variety.

... despite of fact that carbonaria alleles are dominant. Or that carbonaria never make 100% of local population in most polluted areas. Simply - typica was always present but we did not know it.

As we see from a real analysis of the genetic probabilities, the proportion should never reach beyond 75% in the absence of preferential predation and would struggle to get over 89% even with 100% consumption of typica varieties before they can mate.

This is because typica as the recessive gene is always present in populations of carbonaria variety moths.

This "doesn't reach 100%" is another "creatortionista" misrepresentation of basic genetics, or evidence of profound ingnorance and misunderstanding of the basic science involved.

Because we catch only male individuals after mating. As you know, in traps we always have only males, no females.

This is basic to evolution: males need to search out the females to mate, the females do not search for males. Females will concentrate on feeding, males on breeding. Thus males will always be caught in higher proportions than the females, whether the traps use light to attract the moths or pheromones (which will of course only attract males, due to the pheromone used), because they spend more time flying than females.

The breeding population proportion of female carbonaria to typica will also be very similar to the breeding population proportion of male carbonaria to typica due to the same genetics producing them.

Thus one could use 100% male captures for the data and it would still represent the overall picture.

Furthermore, even if the preferential selection did only operate on the males of the populations this would still be enough to drive the population change that is observed. The female proportions would follow the trend of the male populations, and the effect would lag behind the male effect, but it would still occur.

But individuals are selected by birds only after mating and we do not have information on females.

You are reaching conclusions that are not based on any data again (ie making guesses).

The evidence is that birds preferentially select the more visible moths for predation, whether male, female, carbonaria or typica.

So my conclusion may be as right as neodarwinian one. After-mating selection without any eesential influence on fitness of typica.

Conclusion? You have just made an assertion, not a logically derived conclusion from validated premises backed by evidence. You've piled up a bunch of hopeful guesses and then stated what you think the result could be without showing the logical development or any real analysis.

I can even concede that these individuals are exposed to strong selective pressure as claimed by neodarwinists.

Good for you.

But they think, that what they measure is what happening.

And you have provided no real challenge to the idea that they really ARE measuring what actually happened. Remember the original study was because the change in population proportions had been observed.

The studies were also replicated with a number of indoor controls, things that would have shown any kind of pattern such as you suggest. They also involved breeding programs to have moths to release eh?

The genetic equilibrium evidence is that preferential selection is persistent and ongoing due to the population proportions NOT being at equilibrium in either the non-polluted or polluted scenarios.

There is still no other mechanism that produces this population proportion in either condition.

Care to try again?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : formating

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 236 by MartinV, posted 10-16-2006 5:31 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 238 by MartinV, posted 10-21-2006 3:32 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 239 of 350 (358037)
10-21-2006 9:34 PM

Reply to: Message 238 by MartinV
10-21-2006 3:32 PM

Re: Peppered moth as model of selection?

I agree with all your computation.
Nevertheless:

I suppose ... I will suppose ...

So each night we should catch at least 5,8% typica or at most 94,2% of carbonaria. That is not the case, so ...

So therefore your assumptions are wrong. Math cannot invalidate reality, all it can do is suggest that a model is correct or not.

One cause could easily be the difference between the pupation proportions and the ones that survived until capture.

Note from your links that males pupate earlier than females (this would be to ensure they are around when the females mate) so they are subject to preferential selection prior to the females.

Note from your links that females don't lay eggs until the 2nd or 3rd day, and so are subject to prefential predation until then.

This means that there is a window of opportunity for preferential predation to act on the two varieties before they have a chance to complete the reproductive cycle, and this is all that is necessary.

Remember that the conclusion was that the proportions would be at an equilibrium level of 25% typica and 75% carbonaria in the absence of preferential predation, and as this was NOT the case either prior to, or subsequent to, pollution changing the environment there must be an active selection mechanism in place that preferentially selects the moths.

Anyway I do not see what neodarwinists would like to prove with peppered moths - if your claim that there always will be 11% of typica is true. Selection of such type has no profound meaning and is allways reversible.

The point is to explain the proportions of the two varieties that are observed in the different environments, the change, the cause of the change, and the recovery.

Preferential predation explains

why the populations are NOT at the equilibrium levels in either environment
- (preferential predation is an active force)
why the typica variety has a survival advantage in non-polluted forests
- (it is better camouflaged by day)
why the carbonaria variety has a survival advantage in polluted forests
- (it is better camouflaged by day)
why the population changes from typica to carbonaria when pollution is introduced
- (the survival advantage changes from typica to carbonaria)
why the population changes back when the pollution is alleviated
- (the survival advantage changes from carbonaria to typica)
why the change can happen in such a short time
- (both types are present in the gene population but the proportion of one or the other is suppressed in the breeding population by preferential predation and has a tendency to recover when predation pressure is alleviated)
why pollution is the factor causing the change in population proportions
- (the changed environment changes the survival abilities from one to the other)

This is natural selection: a shift in the frequency of the genes within a population due to a change in predation and environmental conditions.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 238 by MartinV, posted 10-21-2006 3:32 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 240 by MartinV, posted 10-22-2006 3:50 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 241 of 350 (358117)
10-22-2006 11:32 AM

Reply to: Message 240 by MartinV
10-22-2006 3:50 AM

Preferential Predation still the best model

Mm and Mt morphs (75% M and 25%T alleles).

Don't confuse alleles with morphs. CT is a carbonaria morph with recessive typica allele, as is TC. TT is pure typica alleles and CC is pure carbonaria alleles. So in the population - without preferential predation pressure - there are as many typica alleles as there are carbonaria alleles, but there are 75% carbonaria morphs and 25% typica morphs.

Yet there will be as result one typica TT which in case of selective predation will be eaten, so T alleles are permanently spliting away from population. If first MM: Mt was 1:1, next generation will be MM: Mt ratio 9:6.

Remember I said that would be the population proportions in the absence of preferential predation.

Your introduction of preferential predation negates that condition, and thus any subsequent conclusion is not relevant to the argument since you changed the conditions.

What you are covering is the same as I covered with preferential predation of the typica variety.

{abe}

If first MM: Mt was 1:1, next generation will be MM: Mt ratio 9:6.

This is, of course the effect of preferential predation on the populations that forces a higher proportion of carbonaria to typica.

This IS natural selection
{/abe}

If carbonaria gene frequency in Leeds was truly 100% before 1970 ...

So immigration is needed to start change.

OR the carbonaria gene frequency was NOT truly 100%.

Seeing as typica alleles are recessive to carbonaria alleles it is much more likely that typica alleles continued to exist within the carbonaria population than that they HAD to be introduced from outside.

Anyway it seems to be neccesary to involve mutation as starting factor creating new morphs as well - question avoided by all of you neodarwinists here completely.

What? Message 124

JonF writes:

The statistics of the populations have been investigated in many experiments. The color differences are due to a mutation in a gene that causes melanin production. The "dark" allele is dominant, so a moth must have two "light" alleles to be light. The dark mutation is "recurrent", in that it arises anew once in a while; but, before industrialization, the dark moths were at such a disadvantage that the light moths were far in the majority.

That was a message that specifically replied to one of your messages.

Nobody has said that the difference between the two varieties was not due to previous mutations within the population. That is the basis for natural selection: that there is a variety of genetic variations within any and all populations of species such that some offer benefits while others are handicaps and others are neutral within the existing environment, but when the environment changes the balance between beneficial and handicap changes as well.

The existence of mutations within the population is taken as a given in this case.

Looks like you are trying to move the goalposts again.

You still have not provided any mechanism to explain the change in populations that even comes close to preferential predation, nor have you in any way shown that the result cannot be due to preferential predation.

You don't have an alternative mechanism that explains the observed evidence as well as or better than the natural selection mechanism.

You have not invalidated the natural selection mechanism.

Your argument fails.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : modified message link

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : added {abe} section

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 240 by MartinV, posted 10-22-2006 3:50 AM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 242 by MartinV, posted 10-24-2006 2:33 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 243 of 350 (358663)
10-24-2006 10:50 PM

Reply to: Message 242 by MartinV
10-24-2006 2:33 PM

Re: Preferential Predation still the best model

Your claim contradicts the article I have given you in previous link:
Melanic Moth Frequencies in Yorkshire, an Old English Industrial Hot Spot | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic

I read the article the first time. It talked about nearly 100% carbonaria\melanic form at the top, and then in the discussion switched to 100% carbonaria genes at the part you quoted, which is a different matter. That is the first time he mentions genes. He does discuss dominant forms, but seems to ignore that hybrids would be considered carbonaria\melanic:

quote:
B. betularia was scored as the dominant melanic carbonaria Jordan or the dotted white typical.

One or the other, no consideration for 'mixed' genes.

An obvious conclusion is that IF carbonaria is a dominant gene (as all the evidence seems to show) that a population can be 100% carbonaria\melanic form and NOT be 100% carbonaria genes because that's comparing apples and oranges.

With 100% carbonaria\melanic forms the proportion of the carbonaria genes could be anywhere from 50% to 100%.

Consider an organism {BUG} that has two form of a gene, {SHOW} and {HIDE}; if the {BUG} has two copies of {SHOW} then it is visible to predators and gets eaten, while ones that have {SHOW}{HIDE} can hide from predators, but if it has two copies of {HIDE} that this is lethal and the individuals die before reaching reproductive age.

Only the ones that have {SHOW}{HIDE} live long enough to reproduce, so all the long term (ie - breeding) population will be {SHOW}{HIDE}, half of each new generation will be {SHOW}{HIDE}, 1/4 will be {SHOW}{SHOW} and get eaten before reproduction, and 1/4 will be {HIDE}{HIDE} and die before reaching reproduction, but the species as a whole will continue to provide new generations.

If we assume, that typica has 2 alleles tt this "reccurent" mutation not only should create de novo always dominat(!) C allele ...

There are some genes that are more susceptible to mutations than others. This has been shown by genetic studies. The same mutation recurring would also be dominant because it would be the same gene.

Another way the gene could recur is that there could be a secondary gene that protects against the carbonaria gene by disabling it or turning it off, but that it is subject to disruption by random mutations - which pretty much ensures repetitions of expression of the very same carbonaria gene.

Look at the evolution of wings in walkingstick bugs -- NOT to get into a discussion of walking sticks, but to show the recurrence of wings:

(Source: Nature article, need sign in to access more than this abstract)

quote:
These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification.

Wing genes are probably much more complex in arrangement than this one color gene eh? And yet we see wings being lost and then regained.

This was discussed on Message 101 but that thread is now closed. If you want to discuss this further I can start another thread on walking sticks.
NOTE: Discussing walkingsticks will be off topic on this thread.

The issue that can be discussed, and stay on topic, is being able to 'recover' genes that had existed previously, and it looks like this is possible, depending on how they were {removed\disabled} from ancestral species.

Certainly if a dominant gene is as potentially harmful to a species as carbonaria normally appears to be (being almost totally suppressed by predation in normal woods), one could expect a mutation that suppresses or disables the carbonaria gene, leaving the moth with the expression of the other, typica, gene, and this would maintain the carbonaria gene in the population gene pool.

I would say that mutation with so pleitropic effect cannot occurs "reccurently", but should be sitting somewhere in DNA and only be "derepressed".

Exactly. But the expression of the gene would still be seen as "recurrent" - just that the method of the recurrence is a different mutation.

... but whats more it should create "de novo" instict that led moths to rest on proper black lichens/backround.

Only if you think that is really what is going on. As I recall that was one of your previous hypothesis, but I don't need to make that assumption.

I can assume either of two things: (1) the moths compare a visible part of their {wing\body} with potential resting places and choose ones that match (thus trying to match whatever shade they are against whatever backgrounds are available) or (2) that resting places are relatively randomly chosen but that the locations (parts of the tree) normally chosen have characteristics matching their camouflage pattern (that has evolved to match the "normal" habitat).

leads to moths only being exposed when they run out of places to rest that allow them to benefit from their relative camouflage ability, thus needing change to the environment that destroys or significantly alters beneficial resting places (which pollution would do), while
leads to moths being exposed whenever they chose a less advantageous background to rest on, which happen much more for dark moths in normally light forests and light moths in normally dark forests (also caused by pollution).

Thus (1) is a specific localized tree environment adaptation with generalized behavior, while (2) is a generalized neighborhood environmental adaptation with localized behavior, but BOTH have the same relationship of camouflage ability to preferential predation by birds in different exposure environments.

But thinking about difficulties of peitropic effect of "reccurent" mutation from typica to melanica ...

I think you mean pleiotropic: "the phenomenon of one gene being responsible for or affecting more than one phenotypic characteristic." But even that is not necessary, there just needs to be a mechanism that disables the dominant C gene. This could well mean that an individual that inherits two suppressed C genes may not be able to survive but that would still be an advantage to the population compared to have a lot of visible moths.

... and vice versa it is underestandable that you stick on claim that "typica continued to exist within carbonaria" ...

And carbonaria\melanics don't need to evolve back to typica for each generation, the typica gene is still there, just not expressed because it is recessive compared to the carbonaria gene.

... even if it seems in case of Leeds contradicts completely the basics of genetics and mendelian maths.

But it doesn't really. He says quite plainly "IF"

quote:
If carbonaria gene frequency in Leeds was truly 100% before 1970, then no change would have been possible without introduction of typicals by mutation or migration of immigrants from regions of lower frequency.

Not that it was 100% carbonaria gene. He then goes on to say:

quote:
Because typical is recessive, these processes would have introduced genes in heterozygotes that were not subject to selection, and the response to selection would necessarily be very slow.

So he rules out mutation to 'reintroduce' typica variety.

Then he concludes that:

quote:
It is likely that the response observed was in some part due to immigration.

BUT it is equally valid to consider that it WASN'T 100% carbonaria genes at Leeds. The fact that doing so invalidates the necessity of his conclusion that immigration must play some role in the changes is HIS problem, as he has not considered that alternative in his paper eh?

Whether that "some" is 1% or 50% is not stated. Certainly he does not say "mostly due to immigration" does he? And he certainly does not rule out preferential predation on Peppered moths, even with his conclusion for "some" immigration.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 242 by MartinV, posted 10-24-2006 2:33 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 244 by MartinV, posted 10-28-2006 3:02 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 245 of 350 (360003)
10-30-2006 10:47 PM

Reply to: Message 244 by MartinV
10-28-2006 3:02 PM

More Biston betularia math. tomorrow.

Had a long reply last night and lost it. I'll see if I can reconstruct it from the notes and calcs ... tomorrow night.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 244 by MartinV, posted 10-28-2006 3:02 PM		MartinV has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1430 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 246 of 350 (360283)
10-31-2006 9:18 PM

Reply to: Message 244 by MartinV
10-28-2006 3:02 PM

More Biston betularia math. Continued.

Had a long reply last night and lost it. I'll see if I can reconstruct it from the notes and calcs ...

Not at all.There is strong corellation between genotype frequencies and allele frequecies in this case. If there is selective predation on typica, then carbonaria are cleaned out of typica allele after some time and the result is only homozygotous carbonaria.

The problem I have with this is that every heterozygous female lays eggs that are 1/2 heterozygous moths, whether mated with a homozygous male or a heterozygous male, and every heterozygous male fertilizes eggs that are 1/2 heterozygous moths, whether mated with a homozygous female or a heterozygous female.

To me that indicates that there would always be heterozygous moths, and as long as there are heterozygous moths there will be typica alleles in the population.

Remember this:

Pattern {C} - male carbonaria breeding with female carbonaria

CC+cc = Cc Cc Cc Cc - all four "carbonaria"
CC+ct = Cc Ct Cc Ct - all four "carbonaria"
CC+tc = Ct Cc Ct Cc - all four "carbonaria"
CT+cc = Cc Cc Tc Tc - all four "carbonaria"
CT+ct = Cc Ct Tc Tt - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
CT+tc = Ct Cc Tt Tc - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
TC+cc = Tc Tc Cc Cc - all four "carbonaria"
TC+ct = Tc Tt Cc Ct - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
TC+tc = Tt Tc Ct Cc - one "typica" and three "carbonaria"
4 typica out of 36
11% typica
89% carbonaria

Let's re-write that to show heterozygous and homozygous carbonaria proportions:

Pattern {C} - male carbonaria breeding with female carbonaria

CC+cc = Cc Cc Cc Cc = all four Cc "carbonaria"
CC+ct = Cc Ct Cc Ct = two Cc "carbonaria" and two Ct "carbonaria
CC+tc = Ct Cc Ct Cc = two Cc "carbonaria" and two Ct "carbonaria
CT+cc = Cc Cc Tc Tc = two Cc "carbonaria" and two Tc "carbonaria
CT+ct = Cc Ct Tc Tt = one tt "typica" one Cc "carbonaria and one Ct "carbonaria" and one Tc "carbonaria"
CT+tc = Ct Cc Tt Tc = one tt "typica" one Cc "carbonaria and one Ct "carbonaria" and one Tc "carbonaria"
TC+cc = Tc Tc Cc Cc = two Cc "carbonaria" and two Tc "carbonaria
TC+ct = Tc Tt Cc Ct = one tt "typica" one Cc "carbonaria and one Ct "carbonaria" and one Tc "carbonaria"
TC+tc = Tt Tc Ct Cc = one tt "typica" one Cc "carbonaria and one Ct "carbonaria" and one Tc "carbonaria"
4 typica out of 36 = 11.1%
16 Cc carbonaria out of 36 = 44.4%
8 Tc carbonaria out of 36 = 22.2%
8 Ct carbonaria out of 36 = 22.2%

If all typica are consumed before mating then those specific typica alleles are removed, but not all the ones in the heterozygous carbonaria moths.

We would then have 88.8% survival and still all 88.8% carbonaria, becomes 100% for next generation, half of them homozygous and half heterozygous.

The next generation would produce less typica moths and less heterozygous carbonaria moths, but before we get to that, let's simplify it a bit so we can compare the ratios of heterozygous carbonaria to homozygous carbonaria in the way we used for the typica ratios before:

Before I used ucase for one sex alleles and lcase for the other sex alleles, and we had Cc, Ct and Tc carbonaria moths. A male Ct and a male Tc moth are the same, as are female Ct and Tc moths, so lets use CC and Ct, where CC is homozygous and Ct is heterozygous. Now we have:

Pattern {C1} male CC carbonaria breeding with female CC carbonaria

CC + CC = CC CC CC CC - all four CC "carbonaria"
4 CC out of 4 eggs
100% CC
0 Ct out of 4 eggs
0% Ct
0 tt out of 4 eggs
0% tt

Pattern {C2a} male CC carbonaria breeding with female Ct carbonaria OR

CC+Ct = CC Ct CC Ct - two CC "carbonaria" and two Ct "carbonaria
2 CC out of 4 eggs
50% CC
2 Ct out of 4 eggs
50% Ct
0 tt out of 4 eggs
0% tt

Pattern {C2b} male Ct carbonaria breeding with female CC carbonaria

Ct+CC = CC CC Ct Ct - two CC "carbonaria" and two Ct "carbonaria
2 CC out of 4 eggs
50% CC
2 Ct out of 4 eggs
50% Ct
0 tt out of 4 eggs
0% tt

The result of Pattern {C2a} and Pattern {C2b} are the same, so we can call this Pattern {C2}

Pattern {C3} male Ct carbonaria breeding with female Ct carbonaria

Ct+Ct = CC Ct Ct tt - one CC "carbonaria" and two Ct "carbonaria and one tt "typica" that is eaten before reproduction.
1 CC out of 4 eggs
25% CC
2 Ct out of 4 eggs
50% Ct
1 tt out of 4 eggs
25% tt

and to reproduce pattern {C} from the original we have Pattern {C} - male carbonaria breeding with female carbonaria

CC+cc = C1 = 4xCC
CC+ct = C2 = 2xCC + 2xCt
CC+tc = C2 = 2xCC + 2xCt
CT+cc = C2 = 2xCC + 2xCt
CT+ct = C3 = 1xCC + 2xCt + 1xtt
CT+tc = C3 = 1xCC + 2xCt + 1xtt
TC+cc = C2 = 2xCC + 2xCt
TC+ct = C3 = 1xCC + 2xCt + 1xtt
TC+tc = C3 = 1xCC + 2xCt + 1xtt
4 tt typica out of 36 = 11.1% but consumed before reproduction
16 CC carbonaria out of 36 = 44.4% as before
16 Ct carbonaria out of 36 = 44.4% Tc and Ct combined

As before, if all typica are consumed before mating then those specific typica alleles are removed, but not all the ones in the heterozygous carbonaria moths.

We would then have 88.8% survival and still all 88.8% carbonaria, becomes 100% for next generation, half of them homozygous and half heterozygous.

Now we can look at the overall population similar to what we did with typica in part of the equation, but now including preferential predation of homozygous tt (typica) moths.

Starting with the proportions is Pattern {C} above, CC is 33% of the breeding population and Ct is 67% of the breeding population -- this gives us a 3x3 grid - with females across the top axis (CC, Ct, Ct), and males on the left side axis (CC, Ct, Ct), and then within this grid we can place each of the three (3) cases above

   | CC | Ct | Ct |
-------------------
CC | C1 | C2 | C2 |
-------------------
Ct | C2 | C3 | C3 |
-------------------
Ct | C2 | C3 | C3 |
-------------------

As before, we notice the proportions: we have Ct at 2:1 to CC in both male and female populations, and this results in (2+1)^{^2} = 9 mating patterns with 1 mating pattern {C1}, 2x2 = 4 mating pattern {C2}, and 2^{^2} = 4 mating pattern {C3}, for an overall mating result:

CC = (1x100% + 4x50% + 4x25%)/9 = 400%/9 = 44.4%
Ct = (1x0% + 4x50% + 4x50%)/9 = 400%/9 = 44.4%
tt = (1x0% + 4x0% + 4x25%)/9 = 100%/9 = 11.1%

Still 11.1% typica (consumed) and 88.8% survival and still all 88.8% carbonaria, becomes 100% for next generation.

We can also show the above table as:

    |  CC | nCt |
-----------------
CC |  C1 | nC2 |
-------------------
nCt | nC2 |n^{^2}C3|
-------------------

Where n is the proportion of heterozygous Ct carbonaria moths to homozygous CC carbonaria moths

And that we can generalize this as (1xC1 + 2nC2 + n^{^2}C3)/(n+1)^{^2}:

CC = (100% + 2n50% + n^{^2}25%)/(n+1)^{^2} = (100% + n100% + n^{^2}25%)/(n+1)^{^2} = CC%
Ct = (0% + 2n50% + n^{^2}50%)/(n+1)^{^2} = (n100% + n^{^2}50%)/(n+1)^2= Ct%
tt = (0% + 2n0% + n^{^2}25%)/(n+1)^{^2} = (n^{^2}25%)/(n+1)^2= tt%

If we assume that homozygous tt (typica) moths are always consumed before reproduction, then the astute observer will see from this that Ct will never mathematically be zero no matter how small n is, although it is possible to reach a practical limit. When that occurs depends on original population size and makeup and the numbers of generations involved.

Further, if we assume that homozygous tt (typica) moths are always consumed before reproduction, then the astute observer will see that this becomes an exponential decay curve. After 10 generations (years) there is still 1 Ct moth for every 5 CC moths and after 20 generations (years) there is still 1 Ct moth for every 9 CC moths.

After all if we started as in case of Leeds with the fraction Melanica genes 0,999 the fraction of normal moths are only 0.001x0.001 = 0.000001. According professor Jeremy Tatum of the University of Victoria if we started with fraction of Melanica genes from this 0,999 and put them under strong selective disatvantage -0,9 even after 50 gnerations M will make 0,9927!

But we don't know what the fraction was for homozygous versus heterozygous. That is the issue here eh? From the above equations we can calculate the numbers of homozygous tt (typica) moths produced each generation (from the heterozygous Ct carboanaria moths) even if we do not include them (homozygous tt (typica) moths) in the mating and reproduction calculations. This would generate regular samples of typica moths to collect.


C  T
-----------
1967  47  0
1968  58  0
1969  27  0
1970  75  1
1971  41  0
1972  76  0
1973  40  1
1974  40  0
1975   3  0

Carbonaria/typica ration was 407/2 = 0,9951.

The explanation for the singular homozygous tt typica moths in this data is either (a) they were bred there from heterozygous Ct carbonaria moths, or (b) they immigrated.

Calculating the numbers of generations needed for typica to be produced at 0.5% (to match the above data) only takes about 12 generations.

But a bigger problem arises from this data: at least two typica (likely male) moths survived long enough to be captured. This means we cannot assume 100% lethal consumption of homozygous tt typica moths before reproduction.

We know from the moth sample rates that we are not dealing with moths at genetic equilibrium, as we are NOT capturing homozygous tt typica moths at anything close to 25% of the population, and we know that we cannot assume total consumption of homozygous tt typica moths before reproduction, therefore we will be somewhere between the genetic equilibrium and total consumption models.

To see how this affects the numbers game, lets assume that all male typicas mate and all female typicas are consumed before laying eggs.

This re-introduces

Pattern {B} - male typica breeding with female carbonaria

TT+cc = Tc Tc Tc Tc - all four "carbonaria"
TT+tc = Tt Tc Tt Tc - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
TT+ct = Tc Tt Tc Tt - two "typica" and two "carbonaria"
4 typica out of 12
33% typica
67% carbonaria

Let's re-write that to show heterozygous and homozygous carbonaria proportions as we did for Pattern {C}:

Pattern {B1} - male tt typica breeding with female CC carbonaria

tt+CC = Ct Ct Ct Ct = all four Ct "carbonaria"
0 tt typica out of 4 = 0%
0 CC carbonaria out of 4 - 0%
4 Ct carbonaria out of 4 = 100%

Pattern {B2} - male tt typica breeding with female Ct carbonaria

tt+Ct = Ct tt Ct tt = two tt "typica" and two Ct "carbonaria
2 tt typica out of 4 = 50%
2 Ct carbonaria out of 4 = 50%

Pattern {B} is made up of 1x Pattern {B1} + 2x Pattern {B2}

We can now introduce the male homozygous tt moths into the above table as:

    |  CC | nCt |
-----------------
CC |  C1 | nC2 |
-----------------
nCt | nC2 |n^{^2}C3|
-----------------
mtt | mB1 | mnB2|
-----------------

Where n is the proportion of heterozygous Ct carbonaria moths to homozygous CC carbonaria moths

And m is the proportion of homozygous tt typica male moths to homozygous CC carbonaria male moths

And that we can generalize this as (1xC1 + 2nC2 + n^{^2}C3 + mB1 + mnB2)/(n+1)(n+m+1):

CC = (100% + 2n50% + n^{^2}25% + m0% + mn0%)/((n+1)(n+m+1)) = (100% + n100% + ^{^2}25%)/((n+1)(n+m+1)) = CC%

Ct = (0% + 2n50% + n^{^2}50% + m100% + mn50%)/((n+1)(n+m+1)) = (n100% + n^{^2}50% + m100% + mn50%)/((n+1)(n+m+1)) = Ct%

tt = (0% + 2n0% + n^{^2}25% + m0% + mn50%)/((n+1)(n+m+1)) = (n^{^2}25% + mn50%)/((n+1)(n+m+1)) = tt%

If all female typica are consumed before mating then those specific typica alleles are removed, but not all the ones in the heterozygous carbonaria moths OR the the male typica moths.

For the next generation n₂ = Ct%/CC% and m₂ = tt%/CC% (assuming 50% males and females in both varieties).

Going back to your chart above we calculated 12 generations to match the data with total pre-breeding consumption of homozygous tt typica moths:


C  T
-----------
1967  47  0
1968  58  0
1969  27  0
1970  75  1
1971  41  0
1972  76  0
1973  40  1
1974  40  0
1975   3  0

Carbonaria/typica ration was 407/2 = 0,9951.

Running these same calculations with male homozygous tt typica moths surviving to breed the numbers of generations needed for typica to be produced at 0.5% (to match the above data) now takes about 26 generations (years).

We still see the same effect of the exponential decay of the typica allele in the population, but now we no longer need to assume that all males are consumed before mating, thus generating occasional males in the traps without having to assume immigration into the area of lonely homozygous tt typica moths.

Immigration could be a co-factor, but it is not necessary to explain the data.

You could also have males travelling to mate and females staying and end up with the same results.

We could do the same thing again while assuming that female homozygous tt typica moths survived long enough to lay half their eggs and we would see a similar relaxing of the exponential curves, and still see the predominance of the CC alleles in the population rise as a result of the predation of the homozygous tt typica moths.

This is what the natural selection is about - the change in the proportions of alleles over time. It isn't about it becoming 100% {X} or 100% {Y}, but about a rarer allele becoming more popular or a more popular allele becoming rarer.

And as I have said before, it does not take ALL the moths being consumed by preferential predation to have this effect, it just requires that SOME are.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : corrected math in last grid formulas for Ct and tt proportions where males survive to breed.

Edited by Admin, : Fix formatting.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 244 by MartinV, posted 10-28-2006 3:02 PM		MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 247 by MartinV, posted 11-02-2006 3:23 PM		RAZD has replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	PaulK, Zucadragon
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0

Summations Only